Presenting articles on the implementation of public administration in Indonesia within the framework of Bureaucracy Reform and Good Governance

Sunday, 10 March 2013

UNDERSTANDING INNOVATION AND BEST PRACTICES*)

Imraan
Patel

Introduction

This chapter aims to improve the understanding of how
to enhance public sector innovation.It begins by
introducing two conceptual models for innovative processes withinthe public sector. The chapter then reviews concepts
of best practices, innovation, andimprovement;
determines whether these are helpful; and analyses selected issues associatedwith the transfer of innovations. It highlights why it
is important to focus on theorganizational
context rather than on single innovations. The conclusion offers suggestionsfor the methodology on transferring innovation,
improvements, and best practicesin governance and
public administration.

Characteristics of Innovation and Best Practices

Many of the world’s nation states are involved in
major efforts aimed at reforming andimproving their
governments (Kamarck, 2003). As a consequence, “innovation is usedever more frequently in the rhetoric and discourses of
public service improvement” as aresult of the
“positive resonances” associated with this concept (Albury, 2005). However,it is important to recognize that innovation is not an
end in itself but a means to an end.Innovation must be
judged by its ability to create what Moore (1995) describes as “publicvalue.”

In this context, Moore (2005) introduces two very
different models to understand innovativeprocesses in the
public sector. The first model is based on specific breakthroughinnovations while the second model focuses on innovative
organizations and continuousimprovement. Further,
he poses the question of whether the study of innovation ingovernment is about: a) the processes that generated a
breakthrough innovation andways to spread that
idea throughout the world or b) the creation of innovative organizationsthat continuously innovate and learn whereby small
changes result in significantchanges over time.

Despite the overlap between innovative ideas and their
dissemination on the one handand the creation of
innovative organizations on the other, Moore argues that these twomodels focus on slightly different things. With
breakthrough innovation, the key questionis what constitutes a
significant innovation and what processes enable it to spread.In the case of innovative organizations, the questions
are slightly different and center onissues such as
organizational structures, financing, cultures, etc. (Moore, 2005).

Notwithstanding these two approaches to innovation,
attempts to facilitate its transfershould include strategies
that deal with the innovation itself as well as crucial organizational issues.
To explore this question in more detail, it is useful to briefly unpack theconcepts of innovation, improvement and best
practices.

Improvement versus innovation

To achieve widespread improvements in governance and
service performance, includingefficiencies, in
order to increase public value (Hartley, 2005), we should not only satisfyacademic rigor but also make sure that the terminology
used contributes in a practicalway to improving
democratic governance.

The word innovation is generally regarded as something
positive and conveys images ofrenewal, commitment,
improvement and progress. The academic literature, quite rightlyso, has argued for the need to define innovation in a
way that helps analysis and policy.Specifically, it is
argued that innovation must be separated from general improvement.For example, Hartley writes that innovation and
improvement need to be seen as conceptuallydistinct and not blurred into one concept (2005).

Combining improvement and innovation in a two-by-two
matrix, Hartley illustrates thatit is possible to
have innovation without improvement as well as improvement withoutinnovation. Within this framework, four scenarios are
possible as shown below.

Figure 1

INNOVATION AND
IMPROVEMENT

High Improvement

QUADRANT 2

QUADRANT 4

No Innovation

Innovation

QUADRANT 1

QUADRANT 3

Low Improvement

Source: Hartley, 2005

Quadrant 1 occurs in highly stable environments where innovation
is not needed becausethere is a close fit
between that environment and its organizational processes, systemsand stakeholder needs. Alternatively, the organization
may be experiencing inertiaand not identifying a
need to either innovate or improve to meet new needs and changingcircumstances.

Quadrant 2 represents organizations which focus on small
incremental changes in orderto improve. It must
be noted that small changes can collectively lead to substantialchanges over time.

Quadrant 3 occurs when there is innovation that does not lead to
improvement and mayeven lead to
deteriorating performance. Situations associated with this pattern include:innovations that do not succeed, and innovations that
lead to more choice but no realimprovement for
users.

Conceptual clarity is important when undertaking
academic studies on innovation. Yet,if innovation
essentially involves the application of new ideas (White, 2003), then
differencesbetween innovation and improvement are
less important since the methodologiesdeveloped to enable
the transfer of innovation can also apply to a general improvement.Because of its positive connotations, innovation as a
concept can be used to encourageand facilitate
improvement and change. Definitions of innovation differ according to theperspective and approach of those who use it (White,
2003). For example, for an internationalawards programme like
the United Nations Public Service Awards, a stricter definitionis more appropriate as it helps isolate groundbreaking
innovations. A publicmanager who aims to
create a learning organization and who places a high premium onongoing problem-solving will instead choose a
definition that facilitates continuous improvementthrough incremental innovation – with a groundbreaking
initiative seen asan added bonus.

Therefore, definitions differ depending on the purpose
for which they are being used. Inaddition, definitions
may change when dealing with the same activity but in two differentsettings. For example, a country with well-established
innovation award programmes,such as the
Innovations in American Government Program in the UnitedStates, would opt for a stricter definition of
innovation as opposed to a country in transitionwhere innovation award programmes are just being
implemented. A country implementingan award programme
for the first time might have more success by adopting

a less strict definition. As the award programme
develops and grows, the definitioncan always become
clearer and stricter. Adopting various definitions of innovation hasanother advantage. As highlighted earlier, innovation
has tremendous emotional valueand depends on
perception. A shifting definition together with suitable incentives cantherefore help to create an environment where
officials strive to raise the bar of what ispossible. The present discussion has important
implications for programmes and activitiesaimed at creating
public value through “innovation.” A variable definition highlightsthe need to focus on the conditions that facilitate
learning from the experiences ofothers. As such, the
details and practice of knowledge-sharing and replication becomecrucial.

Best practices - do they make sense in the public
sector?

A second issue of terminology relates to the concept
of best practices. This chapter supportsthe view of the
Fourth Meeting of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration(CEPA) of the United Nations Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) held inApril 2005. Several
members of CEPA argued that the concept of best practices is problematicin relation to public administration and governance.
The best practices conceptwas popular in the
1980s, particularly in the private sector, where consulting houses favouredthe approach that there were best ways of doing
things. This standard one-sizefits-all approach was popular for a while, but
soon lost favour as private sector companiesrealized that best practices in fact reduced a firm’s
competitive advantage and itscapacity for
innovation. In addition, some practices were difficult to implement becausethey were not easily transported to environments with
different cultures, values, leadershipand legal
environments.

The concept of best practices has lost favour
particularly among developing countriesthat were advised to
adopt standard economic prescriptions by the World Bank and theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF). It is important to
underline that most innovations ingovernance and
service delivery are implemented within complex social and economicsystems. Thereby, the approach of “differential
diagnosis” used by Jeffery Sachs (2004)in relation to
economic development solutions can also be applied to service deliveryimprovements and innovations. A systematic approach
and a good diagnosis are criticalin identifying
problems that require the development of a solution (Sachs, 2005). Usingdifferential diagnosis means that it is more suitable
to talk about good practices (if thesehave an element of
superiority) or, as argued during the Experts Committee, to talkabout successful policy options. Moving away from the
concept of best practices has theadditional advantage
of avoiding fashionable trends and embracing instead an approachthat values problem definition as the starting point
for action whereby good practices,innovations and
improvements are part of a menu of options for addressing that particularproblem or challenge.

What drives innovation?

To better understand the opportunities and limitations
of “replication,” it is useful toknow why innovations
happen. Borins (2000) tried to provide an empirical explanationfor this question by reviewing the winners of the
Innovations in American GovernmentProgram and
identifying the key conditions leading to innovation. Through a survey,innovators were asked to identify the conditions and
challenges associated with a particularinnovation. The
conditions identified by innovators fell into five groups:

nInitiatives
resulting from the political process and system, including an electionmandate or pressure by politicians;

nA leadership
change, including appointments from outside of
the organizationas well as new internal
choices;

nA crisis, either current or
anticipated, particularly with the potential for negativepublicity;

nA variety of
internal problems, including failure
to respond to a changing environment,inability to reach a
target population, inability to meet the demands ofa programme, resource constraints, or an inability to
coordinate policies; and

nNew opportunities created
by technology or other factors (Borins, 2000).

A less formal but similar analysis conducted by the
Centre for Public Service Innovation(CPSI) on innovations
in South Africa reveals a similar set of conditions, with one importantaddition. Following democratization in 1994 and the
integration of South Africainto the global
economy, a significant number of innovations occurred as a result ofadopting and adapting successful models from other
countries. These innovations werenew but not
necessarily original, discovered rather than invented (Hannah, 1995). Inmany cases, the transfer of models occurred in tandem
with changes in leadership andshifting political
conditions. On reflection, several of the innovations imported to SouthAfrica either attempted to address an internal failing
or resulted from a new opportunitycreated by new
technology or processes.

Type of innovation

Governments can and do innovate in a variety of
different ways. Developing a suitabletypology of
innovations is central to efforts to transfer them. For example, it is easier
totransfer a new design of a sanitation
system (like ventilated pit latrines) than to transferone-stop government centers, because the latter has
significant legal, institutional andtechnological
prerequisites. Geography and spatial issues will also affect the innovation.Various writers have attempted to advance different
types. The CPSI developed fourtypes of innovations:
innovations in service delivery, innovations in citizen engagementand democracy, innovations in government processes
(planning frameworks, budgeting,etc.) and innovative
arrangements to reach a certain goal (for example, unique publicprivatepartnerships or
public-community partnerships). Drawing on several of thesewriters, Hartley identifies seven types of innovation.
In practice, it is important to bearin mind that a
particular change may result from the application of more than one typeof innovation. The major types of innovation
identified by Hartley are:

nProduct: New products; for example, using television to deliver
training contentto teachers and
nurses;

nService: New ways to provide
services to users; for example, the introduction ofon-line forms;

nPosition: New contexts or
users; for example, addressing the tax needs of informalenterprises;

nStrategic: New goals or purposes
of the organization; for example, communitypolicing;

nGovernance: New forms of citizen
engagement and democratic institutions;

nRhetorical: New language and new
concepts; for example, congestion chargingin major cities
(Hartley, 2005).

From the above typology, it is easily inferred that
the type of innovation will affect theprocess of transfer,
including how the innovation is documented and the methodologyfor sharing the innovation.

Focus on the broader trend

There is a fair degree of consensus that wholesale
adoption of particular innovations orimprovements is
rarely possible. Experience has shown that the adoption of a particularinnovation is part of a broader trend and trajectory
and that an innovation tends to beaffected by “previous
patterns” (Farah, 2005). These trends and trajectories can be universalor may be specific to certain regions or countries
that share common political, socialand economic
features. As a consequence, when evaluating an innovation, a detailedanalysis of the trend or trajectory within which the
innovation occurs is crucial. Once thetrend has been
identified, it becomes easier to determine whether, if transferred, the
innovationwill be successful and whether there is a
need to consider additional innovationsor changes.

Patterns of Innovation

As highlighted earlier in this chapter, innovation
transfers are more effective when thereare measures in place
to increase the overall innovation capital of public sector institutionsand systems. To illustrate this point, four issues are
reviewed in the following sections,including patterns of
innovation, problem types, as well as barriers to and opportunitiesfor innovation. Glor (2001b) identified patterns of
innovation based on three dynamics:

nIndividual motivation:
This can be either extrinsic or intrinsic.
Intrinsic motivationarises from within
the individual, for example, a commitment to a programmebecause of a personal identification with it.
Extrinsic motivation arisesfrom outside of the
individual, for example, managerial control or some form ofoutside reward or incentive. Intrinsic motivation
enables greater levels of problem-seeking and problem-solving as compared to
extrinsic motivation;

nOrganizational
culture: This can be either a bottom-up culture or
a top-downculture;

nChallenge: This can be either
minor (for example, posing a low risk to individualsor organizations) or major (high risk to individuals
and organizations).

Taking the two extreme points for each dynamic, that
is, the top-down and bottom-upperspectives, and
combining these, yields eight “innovation patterns.” The patterns areas much about innovations as they are about
organizations (Glor, 2001b). The patternsthat emerge as a
result of combining these three dynamics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

PATTERNS OF
INNOVATION

Pattern

Motivation

Culture

Challenge

Reactive

Extrinsic

Top-down

Minor

Buy-in

Intrinsic

Top-down

Minor

Necessary

Extrinsic

Bottom-up

Major

Imposed

Extrinsic

Top-down

Major

Active

Extrinsic

Bottom-up

Minor

Pro-active

Intrinsic

Bottom-up

Minor

Transformational

Intrinsic

Top-down

Major

Continuous

Intrinsic

Bottom-up

Major

Source: Glor, 2001b

While reactive and buy-in innovation produces fewer ideas and less variability
betweenthe ideas, innovations are easily
approved, implemented and integrated. Active and proactiveinnovation, on the other hand, produces
more ideas although of less variability.These innovations are
accepted at the local level, but enjoy little support at the centrallevel. Necessary and imposed innovations receive mixed support. They receive easy
approvalbut encounter difficulties in
implementation. While the center supports the innovation,the innovator does not enjoy support at the local
level. Only transformational
andcontinuous innovation engages the individual and creates major
challenges to the statusquo. Transformational innovation
produces many ideas with high variation from thestatus quo but less variation between the ideas.
Culture provides some support to theinnovator, who
accepts change and readily implements it. Long-term integration is,however, more difficult. Only continuous innovation engages
the individual, the collectivity,and management. It
creates an environment where many new ideas are introducedand the innovations are generally well-received,
easily implemented and integratedbecause they arise
from within the culture.

Innovation patterns help practitioners identify the
issues they should pay attention toduring the
implementation process. A systematic analysis of the patterns can help identifystable and unstable innovations and can therefore
predict the long-term chances ofsuccess. Each pattern
is characterized by a different mix with regard to the “creativity ofthe innovation.” In this instance, creativity is a
measure of the number of ideas generatedby each pattern as
well as the variability of ideas (Glor, 2001b). These enable an understandingof key implementation issues associated with each
pattern. Table II.2 combinesthese two issues. Key
factors associated with the implementation environment includeease of approval, ease of implementation, support
provided to the innovators andcentral support
provided to the innovation. Glor (2001b) concludes that there is a dilemmainherent in innovations based on the following
observations.

Table 2

IMPLEMENTATION
CONSEQUENCES OF INNOVATION PATTERNS

Creativity of the
Innovation

Implementation Environment

Pattern

Number of Ideas

Variability of
Ideas

Ease of Approval

Ease of
Implementation

Support toInnovator

Central Supportto Innovation

Reactive

Low

Low

High

High

Low

Low

Buy-in

Low

Low

High

High

Low

Low

Necessary

High

Medium

High

Low

Low

High

Imposed

Low

Medium to Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Active

Low-Medium

Low

High

Low

Low

High

Pro-active

Medium-High

Low

Low

Low organizationally,

Highlocally

Low

Low

Transformational

High

High (fromstatus quo);

Low (betweeneach other)

Medium-

High

High

Medium

High

Continuous

High

All Kinds

High

High

High

High

Source: Glor, 2001b

The first six patterns (i.e., all except
transformational and continuous) resulted in lowcreativity and minor impacts. For the remaining two,
where high creativity and majorimpact occur, this
happens in one of three ways: through the use of power from the center,through ongoing cumulative changes that produce a
continuous impact, andthrough discontinuous
large leaps (Glor, 2001b). Glor’s analysis, presented in abridgedform in this chapter, highlights the need for a
greater sense of innovation self-awarenessby organizations
wishing to transfer and customize innovations. Organizations that findthis analysis useful are encouraged to review this
study in full.

Problem types

According to Yapp (2005), the desire to find a new way
to deal with a problem is asource of innovation.
Thus, it is important to understand the nature of the problem thata group or team of organizations is dealing with. On
this basis, he proposes a two-bytwomatrix to facilitate the process of thinking about problems.
The same two dimensionsare used on both
axes: whether an organization knows where it is going andwhether the organization knows how to get there (see
Figure 2). The implications ofthe Problem Types model are summarized below.

Figure 2

PROBLEM TYPES

Knows where

organization is going

Process Development

Operational Management

Does not

know how to

get there

Knows how

to get there

Concept creation

Direction-setting

Does not know where

organization is going

Source: Yapp, 2005

Operational management applies to an organization that knows where it is
going andhow to get there. In this case, a budget
and resources are available and the innovator orteam needs to get on with the task and be accountable
for outputs. Too often, organizationsmistakenly believe that they are in this
quadrant and try to apply basic operationalmanagement without much success.

Concept creation is
the task in cases where the organization does not know where it isgoing or how to get there. The focus is on finding a
big new idea. Failure to get to the bigidea results from
organizations demanding project plans and cost implications too earlyin the process, hampering the need for staff to
undergo iterative learning.

Direction-setting is
needed in cases where the organization does not know where it isgoing but has some idea of how to get there. This is
fairly common in the case of improvementsthat can be achieved
by the application of new and emerging technologies,where the potential benefits are fairly obvious but
integration into current strategy is notalways clear.

Process development is
required in cases where the organization knows where it is goingbut does not know how to get there. In this case,
there is a need to clarify how thegoals can be achieved
(Yapp, 2005).The Problem Types model highlights two
important issues concerning the transfer of

innovation. First, of all four problem types the last
three depend on strong leadership tosupport imagination
and concept creation to clarify direction and to design and developprocesses to support improvement and innovation (Yapp,
2005). Second, the introduction of an outside idea can move from one of the
last three quadrants to the first. Whenthis point is
reached, it becomes important to vet the new idea or improvement by applyingoperational management.

Barriers to innovation

The proliferation of innovation awards programmes
indicates that innovation is flourishingin the public sector.
In many cases, however, innovation has not been able toprosper. White (2003), focusing on the South African
experience, identifies a number ofreasons why
innovation fails to thrive, including: a) lack of access to resources for
developmentand testing; b) lack of understanding
about how to initiate innovation or what todo with new ideas or project possibilities that
present themselves; c) inability to attractfunding for long-term implementation; d) difficulties
in finalizing arrangements for public-private partnerships; and e) inability to
replicate and mainstream innovations. Albury(2005) identifies another set of barriers, including:

nShort-term planning
and budget cycles of government (the move by governmentsto medium-term cycles in addition to annual cycles is
positive);

nPoor skills in active
risk or change management and a culture of risk-aversion;

nFew rewards or
incentives to innovate or adopt innovations;

nCultural or
organizational constraints in using available technology;

nOver-reliance on a
small pool of high performers within the organization assources of innovation;

nReluctance to close
down failing programmes of innovation, i.e., what Hartley(2005) terms “exnovation”; and

nDelivery pressures and administrative burdens.

Opportunities for innovation

In reviewing the innovation literature to enhance the
operations of the Centre for PublicService Innovation
(CPSI), White (2003) draws useful lessons for practitioners seeking todrive innovation. These include:

nInnovation is
contextual: As such, the form and
shape that it takes is largely dependenton circumstances and
the prevailing needs of the time;

nInnovation is
a means of expression: It arises to varying
degrees in the presenceof specific factors
as well as specific combinations of these factors;

nAn
environment for innovation can be created: As
a result of the patterns of innovationdeveloped by Glor
(2001b), this will require strategies that address howpublic servants are motivated, how the internal
culture of the organization isshaped, and how the
organization responds to external challenges;

nInnovation does not need to wait for a challenge or a
crisis: Evidence on eventbasedinnovation shows that
an organization can induce conditions that inspireemployees to initiate innovative solutions; and

nCreative ideas arise by bringing together groups of
people who produce intellectualcapital: An organization that
is serious about innovation should enableand support
communities of interest and networks that foster organic thoughtdevelopment.

Partnerships encourage successful innovation. Even
where an individual has developeda solution,
implementing or sustaining an innovation requires the buy-in of the department,access to internal or external funding, and in some
instances the attention of policy-makers. In addition, innovations need
tolerance for failure in order to prosper andgrow. This requires a level of organizational maturity
whereby a failure does not necessarilyimply poor
performance. Reflecting on two models for understanding the contextwithin which innovation arises, White concludes that
innovation occurs even withoutmechanisms to
initiate it. Specific institutional mechanisms are required, however, toaccelerate the speed at which innovation occurs as
well as the frequency of occurrences(White, 2003).

Transfer of Improvements, Good Practice and Innovation

The final section brings together some of the issues
raised earlier with a view to highlightingsuggestions that
could help develop methodologies and tools to facilitate thetransfer of improvements, good practice and
innovation. These issues are explored onlybriefly as they are
addressed in much greater detail in other chapters of this volume. Forease of reference, the word innovation will be used in
this section to mean improvementsand good practices as
well as innovations. The Best Practices and Local LeadershipProgramme (BLP), a programme of UN-Habitat, proposes a
useful definition oftransfers, i.e., “a
structured learning process based on knowledge derived from realworldexperience together
with the human expertise capable of transforming thatknowledge into social action” (You and Kitio, 2005).

Innovation self-awareness

Innovation within the public sector is complex and
challenging (White, 2003). As highlightedby Moore (2005) and
Glor (2001a), ongoing systematic improvements can facilitatemajor changes. They also underscore that for constant
innovation to occur, the publicsector must evaluate
its capacity to innovate and manage change. Innovation requirestools and techniques that can build the capacity of
public officials to understand theirown circumstances and
to achieve greater self-awareness of innovation possibilities andconstraints within their organizations. It may be more
valuable to develop imperfecttools that improve
public officials’ abilities to design solutions that work in their contexts than it is to develop detailed tools that attempt to
provide a unified model fortransferring
innovation.

\

Focus on the problem

It is widely accepted that the starting point for many
innovations is a process of drawingon the experiences of
others. Public service institutions tend to find an innovation andlook at how it can be transferred. Using the Problem
Types model proposed by Yapp(2005), this may work
when the task is operational management, i.e., when the organization knows
where it is going and how to get there. For the remaining three problemtypes, however, it is more appropriate to start by
defining the problem and then tosearch out approaches
taken by others to solve a similar problem. These approachescould include groundbreaking innovations, incremental
changes or even going back tobasics. Box 1
provides an agenda that can assist in this task.

The above does not suggest that organizations remain
closed to alternative approachesand only seek them
out once the problem has been defined. Continually reviewing alternativeapproaches provides organizations with new ways of
looking at problems. Infact, the stimulus
for many innovations has come from solutions that were only remotelyassociated with the organization’s initial
requirement. Reviewing solutions should be anongoing organizational competence for innovation,
together with strategic planning andfuture thinking.

Box 1

DECISION-FLOW
AGENDA

n

nWhat is the service delivery/governance
challenge that I am trying to solve?

nWhat have others done to address a similar
challenge?

nWhat level of success was achieved through the
implementation of the specific solution?

nWhat did it cost and how long did it take to
implement?

nWhat were the prerequisites for the
implementation (particularly legal, administrative, and financial inthe original context)?

nAre there alternative solutions that could be
proposed by employees of my organization or the recipientsof services?

n

Source: Patel, 2005

Learning and knowledge

As highlighted throughout this chapter, learning and
knowledge-sharing lies at theheart of attempts to
create innovative organizations and in transferring and adaptinginnovation. What is required, however, is a more
detailed exploration of the process ofknowledge-sharing and
learning. Innovation suffers when the knowledge that an organizationhas amassed (either from its own practice or collated
from elsewhere) is notable to be carried
forward (Bhatta, 2003). Diffusion can fail because of impediments tothe flow of information (whether engineered or
inadvertent) or a mismatch betweenideas generated in
one context and the goals, capacity and incentives prevalent in anothercontext (Donahue, 2005). Case studies, study visits
and peer learning are traditionalways of sharing
innovations. These, however, do not pay adequate attention tothe key prerequisites that enabled the innovation
(legal, economic, social and institutionalissues) or to
information on costs and resources required.

A conceptual model for thinking about learning and
documentation as it applies to thetransfer of good
practices and innovation needs to look at information required for differentpurposes. For example, there are different information
requirements for idea creation,action, and
reflection/adaptation (as illustrated in Box II.2). As argued by Galim berti
(2005), “the idea behind a specific innovation is more important than the
innovationitself” and, as such, the key to the
successful transfer of new ideas is the “establishmentof a knowledge network on innovation” (Galimberti,
2005). Establishing such anetwork requires
looking at both the supply and demand sides for knowledge.

Box 2

CHANGING LEARNING
AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

Given the potential offered by new technology as
well as the lack of government contact points in areas thatwere formally
disadvantaged, South Africa identified integrated one-stop centers as having
significant value.As part of the process of
establishing these centers, the Citizen Assistance Service (SAC) initiated by
theState of Bahia, in Brazil,
was identified as an innovative model that offered value. A brief look at the
changinginformation requirements of
this project highlights some conclusions that could be of relevance to otherexamples.There were three distinct phases of learning in
localizing and customizing the SAC innovation to the SouthAfrican context. The first
was getting a thorough understanding of the project. At this stage, the project
wasidentified through
knowledge dissemination by UNDESA and this allowed the South Africans to assesswhether it was relevant to
their own context.

On this basis, the SAC concept was integrated
into strategy documents and action plans. Using the highlevelidea contained in the brief
case study enabled the South African project team to generate enough buyininto the concept. Then, the
team began to implement the idea in South Africa. At this stage the projectteam needed to grapple with
a range of institutional, financial and design issues. The brief case study wasno longer useful in guiding
the project team and it was felt that a physical visit to the project was
required.Conducting the visit to
Brazil was therefore the second phase of the learning journey. This study tour
wasfacilitated by the United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs through one of its RegionalCentres, the Bahia
International Centre for Innovation and Exchange in Public Administration.
Having thevisit at this stage was
important for two reasons. First, the people in charge of the implementation
benefitedfrom the study tour.
Second, the project team could ask very specific questions that addressed real
concernsand difficulties in
adapting the SAC to South Africa.

The project is now entering a third phase
whereby the requirements for information-sharing are ongoing andof a deeper technical
nature. Learning strategies include ongoing communication for problem-solving
andeven technical assistance
where people involved in the implementation process in Brazil work with theSouth African team.

Source: Patel, 2005

Using the experiences of others

How an existing experience is going to be used
determines what information the receivingorganization requires
as well as how it interacts with the organization responsiblefor the original innovation. An established innovation
or good practice can be of value toothers in three ways:

nLearning: Learning takes place when the recipient organization
has a good senseof the nature of the
problem to which they seek a solution.

nBenchmarking: In
this case, a country or agency looks at what it has in place oris implementing
and compares this with other established practices. Benchmarkingis mainly at the level of results or outputs and
focuses on how the innovationhas managed to
achieve them.

nReplication: Based on careful assessment, a decision is made to
introduce the innovationwith minor
modifications and customization. The assessment will includelooking at the context, the nature of the innovation
and its suitability.

The different uses of an experience are at the foundation
of two decision matrices: Context-Risk (Figure 3) and Fit-Success (Figure 4).
The Context-Risk matrix is more usefulat the analytical and
learning stage whereas Fit-Success is more useful at the implementationstage, particularly when committing time and
resources. In terms of the Context-Risk matrix,
replication requires strong context alignment and low risk. As there isnever a case of complete context alignment and zero
risk, replication will still requirecustomization and
modification.

Figure 3

CONTENT-RISK MATRIX

High Risk

Avoid

Benchmark

Weak Context

Alignment

Strong Context

Alignment

Learn

Copy

Low Risk

Source: Patel, 2005

Another way of assessing how to use the experience of
others is to plot chances of successwith the fit of the
innovation to the receiving organization and country. Determiningfit and assessing success are not easy processes and
will require the application oftraditional tools of
planning, i.e., cost-benefit analysis, institutional analysis, etc.

Figure 4

SUCCESS-FIT MATRIX

High Risk

Avoid

Copy

Low Chance

of Success

High Chance

of Success

Learn

Benchmark

Low Risk

Source: Patel, 2005

Concluding Remarks

The need to find ways that more effectively create
public value in an environment ofconstant change has
become an ongoing project for nation states and public services.Within this context, the global flow of ideas and
approaches between and within countrieshas assumed greater
importance over time. The ability to transform these ideas intosuccessful action requires intervention on two fronts.
The first is the development oftools and approaches
for the assessment and transfer of innovation. The second is relatedto the enhancement of the innovation capacity of
public service institutions. Thischapter was a small
contribution on both fronts.

*)The
article above is a chapter of Innovations in Governanceand Public Administration:Replicating what works. A United Nations
Publication (2006). Blogged here for the purpose of spreading
the knowledge on public administration.

No comments:

EXORDIUM

Assalamu'alaikum, WW

Public Administration in Indonesia is a personal blog intended to display a variety of articles resulted from research, studies, thoughts, ideas and observations on the actual issues of implementation of public administration in Indonesia in order to realize good governance. All the articles in this blog is freely accessible for the purpose of references for students, faculty, practitioners, analysts and public administration community in Indonesia and in other countries